Subject: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #18: Last call issues and nits from Alissa

From: "geopriv issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:34:00 -0000

#18: Last call issues and nits from Alissa
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                      |      Status:  new                       
 Priority:  minor                       |   Milestone:                            
Component:  geo-uri                     |     Version:                            
 Severity:  -                           |    Keywords:                            
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 This is ready to go, other than one substantive issue:

 The last two paragraphs of section 9.2 say:

 > However, by putting a 'geo' URI into a context that allows
 > identification of a "Target", the URI might become part of a
 > "Location Object", and would then be subject to GEOPRIV rules.

 > Therefore, Publishers of 'geo' URIs that are put into such contexts
 > MUST consider privacy issues, particularly in cases where a URI
 > instance is combined with Personally Identifyable Information (PII)
 > with the intent to describe the location of a Target that is a person.

 The first of these two statements seems more on the right track than
 the second. If a geo URI is used in a context where it identifies the
 location of a Target, it becomes part of a Location Object and is
 therefore subject to GEOPRIV rules. I don't see the need to waffle on
 this point, or to avoid using the requirements that we already have
 set out in 3693. Therefore, the second paragraph would be better as:

 Therefore, when 'geo' URIs are put into such contexts, the privacy
 requirements of RFC 3693 MUST be met.

 Other small comments:

 On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
 >
 > (Opinion only) Statements like this are generally not suitable for
 > documents that are intended to have a long lifetime:
 >   Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications
 >   and location based services were observable on the Internet.

 I agree with this opinion. I think the whole paragraph that this
 sentence kicks off should be situated a bit more "timelessly." A few
 suggestions:

 s/Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications
 and location based services were observable on the Internet./Location-
 aware applications and location-based services are fast emerging on
 the Internet.

 s/a vivid open source mapping community brought an enormous momentum/a
 vivid open source mapping community has brought enormous momentum

 s/A wide range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible
 to professional only became available for a wider audience./A wide
 range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible to
 professionals only have became available to a wider audience.

 Other thoughts in section 1:

 s/or trigger further services/or triggering further services

 s/and write and email straight away/and writing an email straight away

 s/(a physical resource)/(physical resources)

 s/It is anticipated that such devices serve as/It is anticipated that
 such devices will serve as

 Section 3.4.1:

 s/a wrong/the wrong

 Section 3.4.3

 s/subject/object

 (I think "subject" implies a person, but we can have cases where a non-
 human object's location is uncertain.)

 Question: if the assumption is that the single uncertainty value
 applies in all dimensions (which I think is the assumption, but I am
 far from the uncertainty expert), should that assumption be stated?

 3.4.4

 s/180 degrees MUST be considered equal a/180 degrees MUST be
 considered equal to a

 3.5

 s/require internationalization-/require internationalization.

 9.1

 s/refering/referring

 9.2

 s/a 'geo' URI by itself/within the confines of a 'geo' URI

 s/it does also not fit/it also does not fit

 s/Publishers/publishers
 (although per my comment above I think "publishers" should be left out
 altogether)

 Alissa

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/18>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>

---

From: "geopriv issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:08:09 -0000

#18: Last call issues and nits from Alissa
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |        Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                      |       Status:  closed                    
 Priority:  minor                       |    Milestone:                            
Component:  geo-uri                     |      Version:                            
 Severity:  -                           |   Resolution:  fixed                     
 Keywords:                              |  
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 I have applied all changes to the upcoming version -03.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/18#comment:1>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>